Transparency
There are some obvious aspects of so-called anthropogenic climate change that don’t make no sense, the main one being how or why is carbon dioxide tied to extreme weather events. Through my eighty years, I’ve seen plenty of extreme weather events and since around the year 2000 I’ve compared the so-called extreme weather events of the day, to the written record of the past when atmospheric carbon dioxide was low levels, to find there isn’t much difference. The written record goes a long way back in Europe, even before the thermometer was invented, there you find similar extreme weather events happened back when fossil fuels were hardly used. Therefore, it’s reasonable to question how today’s extreme weather can be attributed to carbon dioxide. Here’s local example that needs explanation. The Franz Joseph glacier, with some variability, has generally been retreating to now. During 1895 it was recorded as nearly reaching the sea, and from 1895 to 1907 it retreated quickly, but after 1907 it began to advance again. How can that initial retreat be explained by carbon dioxide induced warming?
This sort of thing is confirmed in the IPCC’s AR6 report on pages 1855-56, where they say the few climate indicator trend changes that are upward are largely benign and for most climate indicators, there is no or negative change. There’s also a table there. The information is there in black and white, so it is fair to ask, why isn’t this common knowledge and why are we still hearing alarm rhetoric that the indicators are worsening. The Secretary General of the United Nations silly rants are an example. The alarmism comes mainly from politicians and the media, which raises another question, how many politicians or media people have actually read the full AR6 report?
Repeatedly, we have been told to ‘trust the science’, but we have recently been let down by science over the Covid issue, and how the cost of energy has increased, solely because of climate policy made from scientific advice. Fairy stories used to begin with ‘Once upon a time’, but nowadays they begin with, ‘Experts say,’ and if anyone raises an opinion to the contrary, it is termed ‘hate speech’. Here’s how the corruption of climate science happens. Politicians create policy, and climate policy comes from the United Nations, who it could be argued, need the climate change narrative as a reason to implement their Agenda 30, which is a kind was of saying, ‘hobbling us all.’ If the policy is so good, why do we need inducement? Anyway, governments signed up to an agreement to cut emissions… without public debate, but as policy rather than based on sound scientific data. Western governments through peer pressure (for want of a better term) appear mandated to stick to the agreement no matter what, and even though the agreement didn’t include measures to constrain food production, most intend to. Who pays for climate research? Governments of course, and they will not fund scientific research unless it meets their climate change agenda. Similarly, the peer review process ensures that papers the governments don’t like, aren’t printed. Which amounts to censorship by omission. The same government control happens in schools, and the trouble is, there are now generations who have been through the system fearing climate change, making climate enlightenment difficult.
To justify what I have just said, we go back to the Hunga-Tongan undersea eruption which happened from 20 December 2021 to 15 January 2022. The eruption was remarkable in two ways; the original blast was the most powerful on the planet for 100 years; and it was an undersea eruption, therefore it threw a huge volume of moisture into the stratosphere. Science and the media have been unusually quiet about this eruption, so it is reasonable to ask why, because is well known that volcanic eruptions can change weather patterns for several years. The eruption increased the moisture in the stratosphere by at least ten percent, so what did it do to the normal atmospheric rivers and have there been unusual flooding since 2022? Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but water vapour is far more powerful, and have there been any unusual heatwaves since 2022? Science and the media have been quiet about the effect of the eruption, and the only logical reason is that the effects don’t fit their climate narrative. Yet they are loud about dodgy information such as - displaying billowing smokestacks to symbolise carbon dioxide pouring into the atmosphere when carbon dioxide is actually odourless and colourless. In other words, invisible. Most smoke contains water vapour, and some environmental nasties… but on the other hand, smoke distributes much-needed plant micronutrients around the planet. Polar bears were said to be endangered but they are clearly not. Corals were said to be bleaching and suffering from warming oceans, but bleaching is a natural process and anyway, corals evolved in even warmer waters. Wholly natural geological processes have always been driven by extreme weather events, rich floodplains have always been formed by sediment during erosion events and floods, and those processes haven’t stopped, but we’re told the extreme weather, and subsequent damage are indications of a changing climate. Arctic ice is held up as an indicator of climate, with the inference that melting will cause sea level rise, but melting sea ice cannot raise sea levels, because the ice is already in the sea, only land-based ice will rise sea level. But do government-funded scientists tell us these things? And it’s government scientists who advise governments on policy? Therein lies a problem.
‘Trusting the science’ became even more difficult after the climategate email of 2009, where a couple of eminent climate scientists colluded to wipe the record of the warm period of the 1930-40’s to make their models ‘look better’. However, the historical record remains in old newspapers… but largely, they got away with it. And of late, climate academics make up historical temperature data, ‘by proxy’ in regions where even now temperature data is at best scratchy because of a lack of thermometers. One of the major questions climate scientists must answer is about ‘not allowing the planet’s average temperature to rise by more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial revolution levels.’ A simple statement maybe, but where’s the science behind that statement and who figured it out? You’d think, because of the huge cost of net zero policy, the media or someone would have scrutinised the theory, but no. First, nobody has said exactly when ‘preindustrial revolution’ they are talking about… this is singularly important because the industrial revolution began in 1760 while the little ice age began during 1330 and ended 1850. Extreme weather events during the little ice age were far worse than today! The little ice age was a bad time for humanity, so we wouldn’t want to go back there voluntarily – and luckily, going net zero has no hope of taking us there. But the idea or theory is illogical. And who said that 1.5°C more than the middle of an ice age is best for humans or the planet? On what basis? For 59% of the past 600 million years, Earth’s average temperature was 22°C, during which time life evolved and thrived only to be nearly extinguished by various ice ages. Has anyone noticed humanity thrives in warmer conditions rather than cold? Right now we are in one of the coolest periods of the last 600 million years! Is there a scientist who can deny that? They have no idea what the optimum world temperature might be.
Even the ‘greenhouse effect’ is a misnomer. The best example of the greenhouse effect is when a car with its windows up, heats up in the sun and likewise a glasshouse with its vents closed… but school kids are taught that carbon dioxide froms a blanket around the planet, which traps heat in…. easy to imagine but erronious. In a closed vehicle or greenouse, there’s no convection, but the atmosohere is not enclosed, as air rises, it expands causing it to cool and the movement allows cooler air to take the place of the warm. As there is no blanket, bits of our atmosphere incuding heat can drift into space. ‘The science’ says the sun’s variability has no effect on climate… but logic disagrees, solar activity differs with sunspots and solar flares, there’s also the variability of our planet’s orbit, which isn’t exactly the sun’s variability but it explains the variability of the sun’s rays hitting the planet.
It's staggering when agencies like the World Economic Forum the United Nation or COP meetings take more notice of a school girl than lhearing from evel-headed scientists, like Happer, Curry, Lindzen or Koonin (there’s a raft of them). But of course, what they have to say doesn’t fit the required narrative… again, censorship by omission. The schoolgirl read from the political copybook saying that because of atmospheric carbon dioxide, ecosystems are dying and there are mass extinctions. However satelite data shows the planet is greening, which equates to more habitat and more biodiversity. Data shows human life expectancy has never been longer, crop yeilds have never been higher, wildfire area is down, numbers landfall hurricanes are down, and sea level rise doesn’t match the rise of carbon dioxide. The more that is understood about the climate, the more there is to learn, but what is obvious, carbon dioxide is a red herring. Yet ‘scientific consensus’ says that carbon dioxide is the control knob of climate. In fact, consensus is the enemy of innovation and truth.
There is no doubt the climate changes, nothing stays the same for ever, but scientists can’t pinpoint how much of the change is because of human activity or how much is natural variability. There are clamate anomalies that happen from time to time, but climate scientists don’t recognise them. And considering carbon dioxide, ninety five percet of atmospheric carbon dioxide is natural, so which bits are dangerous? Nothing we do will prevent extreme weather events, for them we are at the mercy of the cosmos. There is no need to rush into foolish mitigation strategies, because the evidence is that the climate is in no hurry. We should be wary of placing new infratructure in unsafe locations. Fossil fuels are not demonic, nor are belching livestock, we will need them for some time yet… the so-called green energies aren’t green at all, although they might have a place. The cost of reticulation seems to limit their effective use without subsidies , and their useful lifetime is too short for most cost centres.
Here’s the thing, the political and media’s interpretation of climate science is at the very least flawed and arguably, purposely so. They can roll out scientists with facts that support their point of view… but job retainment means they have a vested interest. Climate realists can also roll out the scientist, and the likes of Judith Curry will confirm that speaking against the narrative, indeed is career-costly, which is why the transparency of open debate is so necessary. Climate change is defined as, the same weather trends over a long period, the shortest time being thirty years, but the sensible period would be one hundred. How many times does the media report, ‘the worst in one hundred years’? Well, the current event can’t be a trend when a similar event happened one hundred years ago. But let’s take temperature. The world record was recorded in Death Valley 1913. From 1910 to 1940 there was an upward trend, from 1940 to 1978 there was a downward trend, from 1980 to 1990 the trend was flat and since 2000 there has been an upward trend. None of that can be equated to atmospheric carbon dioxide induced climate change because during the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen at a steady rate. Therefore, the conclusion has to be that climate is the product a myriad of complicated cycles, influences and invisible fields that aren’t yet fully understood. Therefore, building policy based on carbon dioxide alone can’t be justified.
